The Limits of Constitutional Environmentalism: Anti-SLAPP Protection in Indonesian Constitutional Adjudication
Batasan Konstitusionalisme Lingkungan: Perlindungan Anti-SLAPP dalam Ajudikasi Konstitusional Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19184/j.kk.v6i1.53738Keywords:
Anti-SLAPP, Constitutional Environmentalism, Environmental Defenders, Pembela LingkunganAbstract
The increasing use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) against environmental defenders demonstrates that Indonesia's legal framework has yet to fully safeguard the constitutional right to a healthy environment. This study examines why Constitutional Court Decision No. 119/PUU-XXIII/2025 has not fully constitutionalized Anti-SLAPP protection and proposes a more substantive reconstruction of such protection. The research employs doctrinal legal research using statutory, conceptual, and case-based constitutional approaches. The findings reveal that the Constitutional Court maintains a formalistic and procedural interpretation, preventing environmental defenders from being fully recognized as constitutional rights holders. This study develops the concept of Constitutional Anti-SLAPP Protection as a doctrinal framework that reconceptualizes Anti-SLAPP from a procedural safeguard into constitutional rights protection. Accordingly, the study recommends reinterpreting the phrase "every person," legislative reform, and a more progressive constitutional approach to strengthen protection for environmental defenders.
Meningkatnya praktik Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) terhadap pembela lingkungan menunjukkan bahwa perlindungan hukum di Indonesia masih belum sepenuhnya menjamin hak konstitusional atas lingkungan hidup. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis mengapa Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 119/PUU-XXIII/2025 belum mampu mengkonstitusionalisasikan perlindungan Anti-SLAPP serta merumuskan rekonstruksi perlindungan yang lebih substansial. Penelitian menggunakan metode doctrinal legal research dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konseptual, dan analisis konstitusional berbasis putusan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Mahkamah Konstitusi masih mempertahankan pendekatan formalistik dan prosedural sehingga perlindungan terhadap environmental defenders belum diposisikan sebagai hak konstitusional. Penelitian ini menawarkan konsep Constitutional Anti-SLAPP Protection sebagai kerangka doktrinal yang menempatkan Anti-SLAPP sebagai perlindungan hak konstitusional. Oleh karena itu, diperlukan reinterpretasi frasa "setiap orang", reformasi legislasi, dan pendekatan yudisial yang lebih progresif.
Downloads
References
Adelman, Sam, “A legal paradigm shift towards climate justice in the Anthropocene” (2021) 11:1 Oñati Socio-Legal Series 44–68.
Andaru, Nibras, Muhammad Amin & Aji Saptaji, “Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 119/PUU-XXIII/2025 Tentang Perlindungan Terhadap Aktivis Lingkungan Hidup Perspektif SiyasahQadhaiyyah”.
Beauregard, Charles et al, “Climate justice and rights-based litigation in a post-Paris world” (2021) 21 Climate Policy 652–665.
Burgers, L, “Should Judges Make Climate Change Law?” (2020) 9 Transnational Environmental Law 55–75.
Castillo-Ortiz, Pablo, “The Dilemmas of Constitutional Courts and the Case for a New Design of Kelsenian Institutions” (2020) Law and Philosophy 1–39.
Cosens, Barbara et al, “Governing complexity: Integrating science, governance, and law to manage accelerating change in the globalized commons” (2021) 118 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Faiz, Pan Mohamad, “Perlindungan terhadap Lingkungan dalam Perspektif Konstitusi” (2016) 13:4 JK 766.
DiGianoHao, Zhuang & S Wolf, “Environmental public interest litigation: new roles for civil society organizations in environmental governance in China” (2021) 7 Environmental Sociology 393–406.
Hermawan, Sapto & Febrian Indar Surya Kusuma, “NORMATIVITY IN LEGAL SOSIOLOGY: Methodological Reflection on Law and Regulation in Late Modernity”.
Indar Surya Kusuma, Febrian et al, “Beyond Environmental Crisis: Safeguarding Indigenous Territories from Systemic Threats” (2025) 673 E3S Web Conf 02013.
Indar Surya Kusuma, Febrian -, Sapto - Hermawan & Ardyllis Alves Soares, “The Potential Of Judicial Review As An Incremental Business Strategy (The Emergence Of Sharing Economy And One-Stop Services Application In Indonesia)” (2023) 12:1 J Huk dan Peradil 159.
Jodoin, Sébastien, A Savaresi & M Wewerinke‐Singh, “Rights-based approaches to climate decision-making” (2021) 52 Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 45–53.
Johnson, T, “Public participation in China’s EIA process and the regulation of environmental disputes” (2020) 81 Environmental Impact Assessment Review 106359.
Kingston, S et al, “Magnetic law: Designing environmental enforcement laws to encourage us to go further” (2021) Regulation & Governance.
Kojola, E & David Pellow, “New directions in environmental justice studies: examining the state and violence” (2020) 30 Environmental Politics 100–118.
Kotlán, P, A Kozlová & Z Machová, “Opening a Path towards Sustainable Corporate Behaviour: Public Participation in Criminal Environmental Proceedings” (2021) Sustainability.
Kotzé, L & Henrike Knappe, “Youth movements, intergenerational justice, and climate litigation in the deep time context of the Anthropocene” (2022) 5 Environmental Research Communications.
Larsen, Peter Bille et al, “Understanding and responding to the environmental human rights defenders crisis: The case for conservation action” (2020) 14 Conservation Letters.
Lehmen, Alessandra, “Advancing Strategic Climate Litigation in Brazil” (2021) 22 German Law Journal 1471–1483.
Macpherson, E, Julia Torres Ventura & Felipe Clavijo Ospina, “Constitutional Law, Ecosystems, and Indigenous Peoples in Colombia: Biocultural Rights and Legal Subjects” (2020) 9 Transnational Environmental Law 521–540.
Maruf, Arifin, “Legal Aspects of Environment in Indonesia: an Efforts to Prevent Environmental Damage and Pollution” (2021) Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System.
Missleini Missleini & Nynda Fatmawati O, “TINJUAN YURUDIS PENERAPAN KEBIJAKAN ANTI SLAP DI INDONESIA (ANALISA PUTUSAN 14. PID.SUS/2024/ PN JPA)” (2025) 3:1 ALADALAH 323–338.
Mohammad, Farid et al, “Transformasi Kerangka Hukum Lingkungan Indonesia melalui Next Generation Framework: Evaluasi Normatif-Praktis Tata Kelola Terpadu” (2025) 10:1 bhl, online: <https://bhl-jurnal.or.id/index.php/bhl/article/view/473>.
Nelisa, Lidya, “Urgensi Penguatan Ketentuan Prosedural Anti-SLAPP di Indonesia untuk Melindungi Pembela HAM Lingkungan dari Serangan Litigasi” (2022) 8:1 j.huk.lingkung.indonesia 118–151.
Pavone, T & Øyvind Stiansen, “The Shadow Effect of Courts: Judicial Review and the Politics of Preemptive Reform” (2021) 116 American Political Science Review 322–336.
Pellegrini, L et al, “International Investment Agreements, Human Rights, and Environmental Justice: The Texaco/Chevron Case From the Ecuadorian Amazon” (2020) Journal of International Economic Law.
—, “International Investment Agreements, Human Rights, and Environmental Justice: The Texaco/Chevron Case From the Ecuadorian Amazon” (2020) Journal of International Economic Law.
Rif’an, Moch et al, “Environmental Legal Protection Regulation through a Judicial Process Based on Legal Certainty and Anti-SLAPP Principles”.
Sarmila Radjak & Ahmad Ahmad, “Menguji Batas Kewenangan: Tafsir Mahkamah Konstitusi atas UUD 1945 dalam Dinamika Demokrasi Modern” (2025) 3:3 JAlz 1800–1815.
Schilling‐Vacaflor, Almut & A Lenschow, “Hardening foreign corporate accountability through mandatory due diligence in the European Union? New trends and persisting challenges” (2021) Regulation & Governance.
Sembiring, Raynaldo, “MERUMUSKAN PERATURAN ANTI STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DI INDONESIA* FORMULATE ANTI STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN INDONESIA” (2019) 3.
Silalahi, Ryan Abraham, “MENYOAL KONSEP ANTI-SLAPP DALAM PERLINDUNGAN LINGKUNGAN HIDUP DAN KAITANNYA DENGAN PEMBELA HAK ASASI MANUSIA”.
Spiegel, S, “Climate injustice, criminalisation of land protection and anti-colonial solidarity: Courtroom ethnography in an age of fossil fuel violence” (2020) 84 Political Geography 102298–102298.
Steuer, M, “Authoritarian populism, conceptions of democracy, and the Hungarian Constitutional Court: the case of political participation” (2021) 26 The International Journal of Human Rights 1207–1229.
Toolan, Narayan et al, “Legal implications of the climate-health crisis: A case study analysis of the role of public health in climate litigation” (2022) 17:6 PLoS ONE e0268633.
—, “Legal implications of the climate-health crisis: A case study analysis of the role of public health in climate litigation” (2022) 17 PLoS ONE.
Tsomidis, Theo, “Freedom of expression in turbulent times – comparative approaches to dangerous speech: the ECtHR and the US Supreme Court” (2021) 26 The International Journal of Human Rights 379–399.
Valerie, Olivia, “Judicial Paradigm Clash: Comparative Analysis of the Application of the Anti-SLAPP Doctrine in the Protection of Environmental Activists” (2025) 7:2 sjh 785–802.
Wang, Haijing & Mingqing You, “A conceptional game theory analysis of environmental public interest litigation of China” (2024) 10:3 Heliyon e24884.
Webber, Jeremy, “A Democracy-Friendly Theory of the Rule of Law” (2024) 16 Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 339–374.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Abdi Nauffal Satria Eraffif, Febrian Indar Surya Kusuma
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
